Case 3:17-cv EMC Document 30-1 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 19
|
|
- David Bryant
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 MICHAEL E. WALL (SBN 0 AVINASH KAR (SBN 00 Natural Resources Defense Council Sutter Street, st Floor San Francisco, CA 0 Tel.: ( 00 / Fax: ( mwall@nrdc.org Attorneys for Proposed Amici Curiae Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families FOOD & WATER WATCH, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. cv 0 EMC [Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief of Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Support of Neither Party Case No. cv 0 EMC
2 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii INTRODUCTION... STATUTORY BACKGROUND... ARGUMENT... I. Section does not require that a petition evaluate every II. III. IV. use of a chemical... EPA s claim that a section petition must evaluate conditions of use that the petitioner has not asked EPA to regulate is neither reasoned nor reasonable... EPAʹs inflated and unsubstantiated concerns about unmanageability do not justify reading additional requirements into section...0 Alternatively, because section judicial review is de novo, a petition need not include all evidence the petitioner will introduce in court... CONCLUSION... Case No. cv 0 EMC i
3 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, Case No. cv 0 EMC TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases U.S. (0... Am. Bus Ass n v. Slater, F.d (D.C. Cir Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, S. Ct. (0...0 Chevron U.S.A. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., U.S. (... Doe v. United States, F.d (D.C. Cir.... Envtl. Def. Fund v. Reilly, 0 F.d (D.C. Cir. 0...,,, Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline, 0 U.S. (00... Iselin v. United States, 0 U.S. (... Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., F.d (d Cir Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 0 U.S. (00... Meister v. U.S. Dep t of Agric., F.d (th Cir Nurses for Healthy Env ts v. EPA, No. (th Cir. filed Aug., 0... Safer Chems. Healthy Families v. U.S. EPA, No. (th Cir. filed Aug. 0, 0... ii
4 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Saunders v. United States, 0 F.d (th Cir.... Wong v. United States, F.d, (th Cir...., Case No. cv 0 EMC Statutes and Regulations U.S.C. 0(b(... U.S.C. 0((A... U.S.C. 0(... U.S.C. 0(0... U.S.C. 0(a...,,,, 0 U.S.C. 0(a(... U.S.C. 0(b(... U.S.C. 0(b((A... U.S.C. 0(b((C(ii... U.S.C. 0(b((E(i... U.S.C. 0(b((E(ii... U.S.C. 0(c(... U.S.C. 0(e... U.S.C. 0(h... U.S.C. 0(i... U.S.C. (a((b(i..., U.S.C. 0(a..., U.S.C. 0(b(...,,,,, U.S.C. 0(b(..., U.S.C. 0(b((B... U.S.C. 0(b(... iii
5 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 U.S.C. 0(b(... U.S.C. 0(b((A... U.S.C. 0(b((A (B... U.S.C. 0(b((B...,,,, 0, U.S.C. 0(b((B(ii...,,, Fluoride Chemicals in Drinking Water; TSCA Section Petition; Reasons for Agency Response, Fed. Reg., (Feb., 0... Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the st Century Act, Pub. L. No., 0 Stat. (0... H.R. Conf. Rep. No. (... Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act: Proposed Rule, Fed. Reg. (Jan., 0...,, Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act: Final Rule, Fed. Reg., (July 0, 0...,, 0 Legislative History S. Rep. No. (... S. Rep. No. (0...,, Case No. cv 0 EMC iv
6 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Case No. cv 0 EMC INTRODUCTION Section of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA authorizes any person to petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA to promulgate a rule to regulate, under section (a of the Act, chemicals that pose unreasonable risks of injury to health or the environment. U.S.C. 0(a, 0(a. Section deputizes the public to ensure that bureaucratic lethargy does not prevent the appropriate administration of [TSCA s] vital authority. Envtl. Def. Fund v. Reilly, 0 F.d, (D.C. Cir. 0. To that end, Congress empowered citizens to petition EPA to address known unreasonable risks from chemicals, without waiting for the agency to evaluate whether all uses of the chemical present unreasonable risks. Congress imposed only one substantive requirement for a section citizen petition : the petition must set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that [the section (a rule] is necessary. U.S.C. 0(b(. Section (a, in turn, provides for EPA to issue a rule restricting or otherwise regulating the use of a chemical upon a finding that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Id. 0(a. Consistent with this standard, section (b provides that, if EPA denies such a section petition, a district court may order EPA to initiate the rulemaking if the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court in a de novo proceeding that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. Id. 0(b((B. Read together, section and section (a require that a petition for a new section (a rule includes the facts which [the petitioner] claim[s] establish that, id. 0(b(, the chemical presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, id. 0(a, 0(b((B(ii. TSCA requires nothing more. EPA asks this Court to read into section an extra requirement: that the petition evaluate all potential risks posed by other uses of the chemical including uses that the petitioner neither contends pose an unreasonable risk nor asks EPA to restrict. Section
7 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 does not require that information, however, because these are not facts the petitioner claim[s] establish that [the section (a rule] is necessary. Id. 0(b(. Reading into section an additional requirement that petitioners undertake comprehensive risk evaluations like those EPA must conduct under section (b would, by judicial fiat, alter the meticulously described petitioning scheme that Congress set out. Reilly, 0 F.d at 0. Requiring section petitions to evaluate all of a chemical s uses for risk would also make the petition process essentially unavailable to a member of the public who lacked the resources of a large federal agency. Rather than checking EPA s bureaucratic lethargy, id. at, section would become a dead letter. Although EPA requests Chevron deference for its revisionary approach to section, such deference is not warranted where Congress has expressly established the Judiciary and not the [agency] as the adjudicator of private rights of action arising under the provision. Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, U.S., (0. But [e]ven for an agency able to claim all the authority possible under Chevron, deference to its statutory interpretation is called for only when the devices of judicial construction have been tried and found to yield no clear sense of congressional intent. Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline, 0 U.S., 00 (00 (citing Chevron U.S.A. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., U.S., n. (. An agency is not entitled to deference simply because it is an agency. Meister v. U.S. Dep t of Agric., F.d, (th Cir. 00. To earn that respect, the agency must apply rather than disregard the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria. Id. EPA s brief fails to do that: it disregards statutory text, ignores structural obstacles, and overlooks judicial precedent that is inconveniently inconsistent with its approach. This Court should not accept EPA s invitation to revise section. Amici take no position on the remaining issues raised by EPA s motion to dismiss or the specific petition at issue in this litigation. Case No. cv 0 EMC
8 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Case No. cv 0 EMC STATUTORY BACKGROUND Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act in to grant EPA the ability to regulate chemical substances and mixtures which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. U.S.C. 0(b(. To implement this mandate, TSCA section (a directs EPA to adopt restrictions and other regulations as necessary to prevent such chemicals from posing unreasonable risks. Id. 0(a. Following a quarter century during which EPA had not regulated a single chemical under section (a, S. Rep. No., at (0, Congress amended TSCA in 0. See Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the st Century Act, Pub. L. No., 0 Stat. (0. As amended, EPA s duty to promulgate a section (a rule may arise in one of at least three ways. First, under section (b, EPA must conduct comprehensive risk evaluations to decide whether chemicals present unreasonable risks to health or the environment under the chemicals conditions of use. U.S.C. 0(b((A. However, contrary to the implication of EPA s brief, compare Mot. to Dismiss, EPA s section (b risk evaluations are conducted not only on chemicals that EPA has identified as high priority, see U.S.C. 0(b(, but also on non priority chemicals that manufacturers ask EPA to evaluate, see id. 0(b((C(ii. Indeed, up to half of the risk evaluations that EPA conducts must be in response to such a manufacturer request. Id. 0(b((E(i. Although TSCA applies to chemical substances, U.S.C. 0((A, and mixtures, id. 0(0, this brief refers to both as chemicals for brevity. Conditions of use means the circumstances... under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of. U.S.C. 0(. This brief refers to uses of a chemical when referring to such conditions of use.
9 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 When EPA finds that a use of a chemical presents an unreasonable risk following a comprehensive section (b risk evaluation, EPA must restrict that use under section (a. Id. 0(a(, (c(. If EPA finds that a chemical does not present any unreasonable risk to health or the environment, however, that finding can trigger preemption of state law regulation of the chemical. Id. (a((b(i. This is one reason that a manufacturer might ask EPA to evaluate a non priority chemical and pay for the evaluation. Cf. id. 0(b((E(ii. Second, EPA s duty to promulgate a section (a rule may arise because Congress has directed the agency to regulate that chemical. For example, Congress has directed EPA to restrict polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs, id. 0(e, and certain persistent and bioaccumulative toxics, id. 0(h. For these chemicals, Congress has effectively substituted its own evaluation of chemical risks for a section (b risk evaluation. Finally, TSCA section allows the public to petition EPA to promulgate a section (a rule upon a showing by the petitioner that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. Id. 0(a, (b((b(ii. Congress meticulously described a comprehensive process by which EPA, and if necessary the courts, should address such petitions. Reilly, 0 F.d at 0. Compared to general federal administrative law standards, section elevate[s] effective judicial review to a degree perhaps unattainable otherwise. Id. at 0. By statute, a section petition must meet two requirements. Procedurally, it must be filed in the principal office of the Administrator. U.S.C. 0(b(. Substantively, it must set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary to issue the requested rule. Id. That is all. And while the 0 legislative amendments made small conforming amendments to section, Congress intended [n]o substantive or policy change. S. Rep. No., at (0. Once a section petition is filed with EPA, the agency has ninety days to decide whether to grant it. U.S.C. 0(b(. During that time, the agency may hold a Case No. cv 0 EMC
10 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page 0 of 0 0 public hearing or investigate the petition s claims. Id. 0(b(. If EPA denies the petition, the petitioner may sue to compel [EPA] to initiate a rulemaking proceeding as requested in the petition. Id. 0(b((A. A section judicial proceeding following EPA s denial of a petition for a new section (a rule is conducted de novo. Id. 0(b((B. If the petitioner persuades the court by a preponderance of the evidence that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment... under the conditions of use, then the court shall order [EPA] to initiate the [rulemaking] action requested by the petitioner. Id. 0(b((B(ii. Case No. cv 0 EMC ARGUMENT I. Section does not require that a petition evaluate every use of a chemical Section requires a petition to set forth the facts which it is claimed establish the need for the rule. U.S.C. 0(b(. If EPA denies the petition, then the petitioner may sue. Id. 0(b(. In that suit, the petitioner must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, id. 0(b((B, that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment... under the conditions of use, id. 0(b((B(ii. Nothing in this statutory scheme requires a section petition to evaluate every potential risk posed by every use of a chemical. Congress could easily have written such a requirement into section. It did not do so. EPA s contrary reading would therefore result, not [in] a construction of [the] statute, but, in effect, an enlargement of it by the court. Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 0 U.S., (00 (quoting Iselin v. United States, 0 U.S., (. Revising TSCA is Congress s job, not EPA s or this Court s. To be sure, a court in a section proceeding must determine whether the petitioner has shown the chemical poses an unreasonable risk... under the conditions of use. U.S.C. 0(b((B(ii. The phrase the conditions of use is plural and because introduced by the definite article the encompassing. See, e.g., Am. Bus Ass n
11 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 v. Slater, F.d, (D.C. Cir. 000; Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., F.d, (d Cir. 00. EPA argues that this Court must therefore evaluate all the chemical s conditions of use before finding that one of them presents an unreasonable risk. But section does not require such a comprehensive inquiry (unlike EPA s section (b risk evaluation, see infra pp. ; instead, section provides that the court shall order the Administrator to initiate the action requested by the petitioner if it finds that the petitioner shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the chemical poses an unreasonable risk... under the conditions of use. U.S.C. 0(b((B(ii (emphasis added. A court may find an unreasonable risk without evaluating every use of the chemical. A court could, for example, find that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk of cancer when used in, say, air freshener, even if the court did not evaluate whether the same chemical also posed an unreasonable risk when used in, say, manufacturing airplane parts. The court in that scenario would have identified an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use, without necessarily identifying all possible risks under all conditions of use. TSCA does not require the court to go further. It does not require a court to evaluate every use of the chemical or indeed, any of the chemical s uses other than the one that the plaintiff contends presents an unreasonable risk. As we discuss below, this is different from EPA s obligations when preparing a comprehensive risk evaluation under section (b. II. EPA s claim that a section petition must evaluate conditions of use that the petitioner has not asked EPA to regulate is neither reasoned nor reasonable Although EPA argues that a section petition generally must address all conditions of use of a chemical, see Mot. to Dismiss 0, the agency points to no statutory language that imposes such a requirement. EPA instead attempts to hang this argument on the fact that the phrase conditions of use appears both in section (b((b, which governs judicial proceedings following EPA s denial of a rulemaking petition, and Case No. cv 0 EMC
12 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 section (b, which governs EPA s risk evaluations. See Mot. to Dismiss,, 0. But Congress s conforming addition of conditions of use to section is a vanishingly thin reed from which to suspend EPA s attempt to impose requirements that Congress omitted. See U.S.C. 0(b(; see also S. Rep. No., at (0 (stating that the 0 amendments to section were intended to effect [n]o substantive or policy change. EPA appears to contend that a section petition should be required to evaluate all uses of a chemical (or, at least, all uses that are not insignificant, see Mot. to Dismiss 0 because the agency s section (b risk evaluations must evaluate all (or at least some conditions of use of a chemical, see Mot. to Dismiss,. Despite considerable hand waving, however, EPA s argument is more one of policy than statutory exegesis. For while section and section (b contain some overlapping language, the two provisions are not identical, do not involve the same determinations, and serve quite different functions. When a person petitions EPA under section to issue a new section (a rule, the petition asks EPA to eliminate an unreasonable risk from a chemical by 0 Shortly before EPA denied the citizen petition at issue in this case, EPA asserted that a TSCA section (b risk evaluation must encompass all known, intended, and reasonably foreseen activities associated with the subject chemical substance. Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act: Proposed Rule, Fed. Reg., (Jan., 0 (Proposed Rule. EPA has since reversed course, announcing its belief that it may... exclude [from a section (b risk evaluation] certain activities that EPA has determined to be conditions of use in order to focus... on those exposures that are likely to present the greatest concerns. Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act: Final Rule, Fed. Reg.,,, (July 0, 0; see also Mot. to Dismiss. Amici do not believe that limiting interpretation is permissible, and have challenged it. See All. of Nurses for Healthy Env ts v. EPA, No. (th Cir. filed Aug., 0; Safer Chems. Healthy Families v. U.S. EPA, No. (th Cir. filed Aug. 0, 0 (transfer pending to th Circuit. Case No. cv 0 EMC
13 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 promulgating restrictions that remove such risk. U.S.C. 0(a. If EPA does not grant the petition, a petitioner then has a chance to demonstrate to a court that an unreasonable risk from the chemical exists. Id. 0(b((A (B. If, at the end of the section proceeding, the court finds an unreasonable risk, then the court directs EPA to initiate a section (a rulemaking to remove that risk. Id. 0(b((B. A chemical may present an unreasonable risk under its conditions of use, id., if even a single condition of use presents such a risk. EPA has recognized this. See Proposed Rule, Fed. Reg. at ( EPA recognizes that under certain circumstances it may be necessary to expedite an evaluation for a particular condition of use to move more rapidly to risk management under TSCA section (a... this could include a situation in which a single use presented an unreasonable risk of injury for the population as a whole or for a susceptible subpopulation..... But when a court rules against a section petitioner, the court does not make a finding that the chemical does not present an unreasonable risk. The court finds only that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate[] [such a risk] to the satisfaction of the court. U.S.C. 0(b((B. Risk evaluations under section (b work differently. When EPA finalizes a section (b risk evaluation, the agency must make one of two determinations: either that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk or that the chemical does not present an unreasonable risk. Id. 0(i (emphases added. This is different from a section court s determination that the petitioner has or has not not demonstrated such a risk. Id. 0(b((B. The section court s determination is critically narrower than EPA s, contra Mot. to Dismiss 0; the court, unlike EPA, never would determine that a chemical does not present an unreasonable risk. Given the broader scope of EPA s determination, Congress required EPA s risk evaluation under section (b to be comprehensive, while a court s adjudication under section is not. The finding that EPA (but only EPA may make that a chemical does Case No. cv 0 EMC
14 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 not present any unreasonable risk under any condition of use logically can be made only if all the chemical s uses are evaluated. This difference has an important legal consequence as well: an EPA finding that a chemical does not present an unreasonable risk may preempt state law restrictions of the chemical. See U.S.C. (a((b(i. The same is not true for a judicial finding that a petitioner has not demonstrated an unreasonable risk. It is thus no wonder that Congress required EPA s section (b risk evaluations to consider all of a chemical s conditions of use, while requiring a court in a section proceeding to decide the narrower question of whether the petitioner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court... an unreasonable risk. Id. 0(b((B (emphasis added. To the extent EPA now implies that every section (a rule must address all unreasonable risks that the chemical may present and that, therefore, a section petition must be denied unless it addresses every condition of use of the chemical, see Mot. to Dismiss the agency is arguing out of both sides of its mouth. EPA has elsewhere explained that, in a situation in which a single use presented an unreasonable risk of injury for example, where one use results in risks that EPA would determine unreasonable regardless of the risk posed by other uses EPA may move more rapidly to risk management under TSCA section (a for that condition of use. Proposed Rule, Fed. Reg. at (emphasis added; see also Final Rule, Fed. Reg. at, (July 0, 0 (reaffirming that in conducting a risk evaluation, EPA may make an early determination on one or more conditions of use. Indeed, even in denying plaintiffs section petition here, EPA stated that the amended TSCA authorizes EPA to issue TSCA section rules that are not comprehensive of the conditions of use. Fluoride Chemicals in Drinking Water; TSCA Section Petition; Reasons for Agency Response, Fed. Reg.,,,0 (Feb., 0. Piecemeal determinations that particular uses do not present unreasonable risks may overlook aggregate and cumulative risks from those different uses. For that reason, amici disagree with EPA s assertion that it can make piecemeal, early determination[s] Case No. cv 0 EMC
15 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 This makes sense: Congress would not likely have barred EPA from addressing an identified and unreasonable risk simply because EPA had not finished evaluating other, less obvious potential risks. And read carefully, EPA s motion to dismiss does not conflict with this view, for EPA asserts only that a section (a rule must eliminate any unreasonable risks that have been identified. Mot. to Dismiss (emphasis added. This assertion simply does not support EPA s conclusion that all those risks must have been identified for a section petition to succeed. III. EPA s inflated and unsubstantiated concerns about unmanageability do not justify reading additional requirements into section EPA offers two policy arguments for its revisionary reading of section, but neither survives a clear eyed examination. Even if the policy arguments were persuasive, moreover, they would not give the court power to rewrite the statute. Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, S. Ct., (0. First, Congress carefully guarded against EPA s stated worry that petitioners will promote chemicals of particular concern to them over other chemicals that may well present greater overall risk. Mot. to Dismiss. Section gives courts explicit power that a chemical does not present an unreasonable risk under particular uses before completing a full section (b risk evaluation. Final Rule, Fed. Reg. at,; see also supra n.. That concern does not arise with respect to a section petition to regulate only one use, because a court is asked only to adjudicate whether the petitioner has shown that a risk exists, not to determine that there is no risk for the chemical substance as a whole. Section (a s first clause ( If [EPA] determines in accordance with subsection (b((a... reflects that EPA s duty to issue a section (a rule typically is triggered by an EPA risk evaluation under section (b((a. U.S.C. 0(a. But as explained supra, that is not the only route to a section (a rulemaking. Under section (b, when a court finds that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, the court orders EPA to promulgate a section (a rule. Id. 0(b((B. EPA acknowledges this. See Mot. to Dismiss ( [A] petition... asks EPA to jump immediately to... promulgat[ing] a regulation, without conducting a full risk evaluation.. Case No. cv 0 EMC 0
16 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 to allow EPA to defer a section (a rulemaking if the risk identified by the petitioner is less than the risks with respect to which [EPA] is taking action and EPA lacks the resources to take both sets of actions. U.S.C. 0(b((B(ii. Courts need not let section petitions push higher priority chemicals aside. Second, EPA likewise overstates the concern that petitions based on analysis of a single condition of use will force catch up risk evaluation[s] and upset EPA s orderly risk evaluation process. Mot. to Dismiss. When a court grants a section petition for a section (a rule, the court directs EPA to initiate the action requested by the petitioner, U.S.C. 0(b((B that is, to initiate a section (a rulemaking. The court does not order EPA to conduct a catch up section (b risk evaluation of uses of the chemical that are not addressed by the petition. Nor does EPA have a duty to conduct such a comprehensive section (b risk evaluation in response to a section order. Cf. supra pp.. Notwithstanding EPA s puzzling implication that section (c imposes such a duty, that subsection requires EPA to timely issue section (a rules after section (b risk evaluations, not the other way around. Compare Mot. to Dismiss, with U.S.C. 0(c(. EPA s overstated manageability concerns do not justify judicial imposition of requirements on section petitions that Congress omitted. IV. Alternatively, because section judicial review is de novo, a petition need not include all evidence the petitioner will introduce in court Even if EPA were correct (although it is not, see supra, Arguments I III that a section judicial proceeding must evaluate risks from all uses of a chemical including uses that the petitioner does not ask EPA to regulate EPA would be wrong that a section petition must include evidence evaluating those other uses. EPA s theory depends not only on its incorrect claim that a section petitioner must evaluate risks from all uses of a chemical, but also on its premise that a section judicial proceeding is limited to the administrative record. Mot. to Dismiss n.. EPA provides no support for this premise, however, other than ipse dixit. See id. Yet the premise is essential to the agency s claim that a court must dismiss a section Case No. cv 0 EMC
17 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 0 complaint unless the underlying petition on its face provide[s] enough information to allow... the [c]ourt to evaluate the chemical. Id. at. EPA s assumption of record review cannot be reconciled with section s de novo judicial review standard. U.S.C. 0(b((B. While judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA must, save in rare instances,... be conducted on the administrative record, section does not incorporate that standard. Reilly, 0 F.d at 0. Instead, a court proceeding under section decides for itself by a preponderance of the evidence and de novo whether TSCA s unreasonable risk standard is met. U.S.C. 0(b((B. EPA s disregard for this statutory standard and its failure to inform this Court of appellate precedent that rejects the agency s assertion that section litigations are limited to an administrative record, compare Mot. to Dismiss n., with Reilly, 0 F.d at 0 is troubling. EPA does not even try to explain why de novo in section means anything other what it normally means: a fresh, independent determination that is not limited to or constricted by the administrative record. Doe v. United States, F.d, (D.C. Cir.. Given this established meaning, appellate courts, including the Ninth Circuit, do not find error when district courts consider extra record evidence in de novo proceedings. See, e.g., Wong v. United States, F.d, (th Cir. ; see also, e.g., Saunders v. United States, 0 F.d, (th Cir.. And consistent with that meaning, TSCA s legislative history confirms that Congress understood that section plaintiffs in de novo proceedings would introduce evidence, rather than be limited to an administrative record. See S. Rep. No., at ( (stating that in a section case the court would make a decision after gathering evidence in a de novo procedure ; cf. H.R. Conf. Rep. No., at ( (stating that the de novo proceeding affords greater rights to a person petitioning for the issuance of a rule or order because in such a situation [EPA] will not previously have addressed the issue. Case No. cv 0 EMC
18 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 EPA s assertion that a section petition must provide all information necessary for a court to rule for the plaintiff, Mot. to Dismiss, runs headlong into the statute s de novo standard. Because a section plaintiff may introduce evidence in the court case, the underlying administrative petition need not include all the petitioner s evidence. In this sense, the petition acts more like a district court complaint than a summary judgment filing: while the petition must state the facts that the petitioner claim[s] are necessary to establish an unreasonable risk from the chemical, see U.S.C. 0(b(, the petition need not contain all the evidence supporting those claimed facts. Evidence establishing that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk may instead be submitted during a subsequent section (a rulemaking proceeding (if EPA grants the petition or in a de novo court proceeding (if EPA does not. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court should not read into section a requirement that a petition for a section (a rule must evaluate all of a chemical s conditions of use. // 0 Case No. cv 0 EMC
19 Case :-cv-0-emc Document 0- Filed 0// Page of 0 October, 0 Of Counsel for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families: Robert M. Sussman 0 Garfield Street, NW Washington DC 000 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Michael E. Wall MICHAEL E. WALL (SBN 0 AVINASH KAR (SBN 00 Natural Resources Defense Council Sutter Street, st Floor San Francisco, CA 0 Tel.: ( 00 / Fax: ( mwall@nrdc.org Attorneys for Proposed Amici Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families 0 Case No. cv 0 EMC
Case 3:17-cv EMC Document 42 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FOOD & WATER WATCH, INC., et al., Case No. -cv-0-emc v. Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION
More informationCase 3:17-cv EMC Document 32 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN FRANCISCO
Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed // Page of MICHAEL CONNETT, ESQ., CA Bar No. 00 CHRIS NIDEL, ESQ., D.C. Bar No. 0 FOOD & WATER WATCH Franklin St., Suite 00 Oakland, California Telephone: () -0 Facsimile:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE
Case: 17-72260, 10/02/2017, ID: 10601894, DktEntry: 19, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAFER CHEMICALS HEALTHY FAMILIES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES
More informationCase 3:17-cv EMC Document 53 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FOOD & WATER WATCH, INC., et al., Case No. -cv-0-emc 0 v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL ) DIVERSITY, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action No. 10-2007 (EGS) v. ) ) LISA P. JACKSON, et al., ) ) Defendants.
More informationChapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies.
Chapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies. Administrative agencies are governmental bodies other than the courts or the legislatures
More informationPATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No.
PATENT LAW Is the Federal Circuit s Adoption of a Partial-Final-Written-Decision Regime Consistent with the Statutory Text and Intent of the U.S.C. Sections 314 and 318? CASE AT A GLANCE The Court will
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-BEN-BLM Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL TARTAKOVSKY, MOHAMMAD HASHIM NASEEM, ZAHRA JAMSHIDI, MEHDI HORMOZAN, vs. Plaintiffs,
More informationSupreme Court s Limited Protection for Whistleblowers Under Dodd-Frank. Lindsey Catlett *
Supreme Court s Limited Protection for Whistleblowers Under Dodd-Frank Lindsey Catlett * The Dodd-Frank Act (the Act ), passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, was intended to deter abusive practices
More informationCase 3:17-cv VC Document 48 Filed 09/29/17 Page 1 of 17
Case :-cv-00-vc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Mark McKane, P.C. (SBN 0 Austin L. Klar (SBN California Street San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: ( -00 Fax: ( -00 E-mail: mark.mckane@kirkland.com austin.klar@kirkland.com
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 07-613 In the Supreme Court of the United States D.P. ON BEHALF OF E.P., D.P., AND K.P.; AND L.P. ON BEHALF OF E.P., D.P., AND K.P., Petitioners, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, Respondent.
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4159 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (a.k.a. OOIDA ) AND SCOTT MITCHELL, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationNatural Resources Journal
Natural Resources Journal 17 Nat Resources J. 3 (Summer 1977) Summer 1977 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 Scott A. Taylor Susan Wayland Recommended Citation Scott A. Taylor & Susan
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case 4:12-cv-00394-BLW Document 25 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO HILDA L. SOLIS, Secretary of Labor, v. Plaintiff, Case No. 4:12-cv-00394-BLW MEMORANDUM
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS INC.,
Case: 10-15222 11/14/2011 ID: 7963092 DktEntry: 45-2 Page: 1 of 17 No. 10-15222 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, ADVANCED
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #18-1085 Document #1725473 Filed: 04/05/2018 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS,
More informationCase 1:17-cv TSE-IDD Document 29 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 1277
Case 1:17-cv-00733-TSE-IDD Document 29 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 1277 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
Hans Heitmann v. City of Chicago Doc. 11 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 08-1555 HANS G. HEITMANN, et al., CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, v. Plaintiffs-Appellees, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO
USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1668929 Filed: 03/31/2017 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationComments of the American Chemistry Council on the New Chemicals Review Program Under TSCA as Amended. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPPT
Comments of the American Chemistry Council on the New Chemicals Review Program Under TSCA as Amended Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0658 January 17, 2017 Michael P. Walls Karyn M. Schmidt Christina Franz
More informationORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases
USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1669991 Filed: 04/06/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 No. 15-1363 and Consolidated Cases IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
More informationRe: Response to Critique by Law Professors of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
March 18, 2015 The Honorable James Inhofe Chairman Committee on Environment & Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Barbara Boxer Ranking Member Committee on
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1668936 Filed: 03/31/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, ET
More informationFordham Urban Law Journal
Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 4 4 Number 3 Article 10 1976 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1972- Jurisdiction to Review Effluent Limitation Regulations Promulgated
More informationORAL ARGUMENT HELD DECEMBER 10, 2013 DECIDED APRIL 15, 2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #12-1100 Document #1579258 Filed: 10/21/2015 Page 1 of 8 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD DECEMBER 10, 2013 DECIDED APRIL 15, 2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
More informationIn re Rodolfo AVILA-PEREZ, Respondent
In re Rodolfo AVILA-PEREZ, Respondent File A96 035 732 - Houston Decided February 9, 2007 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) Section 201(f)(1)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 537 U. S. (2002) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More information654 F.3d 376 (2011) Docket No cv. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: May 12, Decided: June 30, 2011.
654 F.3d 376 (2011) Feimei LI, Duo Cen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Daniel M. RENAUD, Director, Vermont Service Center, United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, United
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER THE NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION
NOS. 14-46, 14-47 AND 14-49 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT. ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
More informationDobbs V. Wyeth: Are We There Yet, And At What Cost?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Dobbs V. Wyeth: Are We There Yet, And At What Cost?
More informationUSCA Case # Document # Filed: 07/19/2011 Page 1 of 8 [NOT SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] No
USCA Case #11-5121 Document #1319507 Filed: 07/19/2011 Page 1 of 8 [NOT SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] No. 11-5121 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT IN RE COALITION
More informationCase 1:15-cv IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137
Case 1:15-cv-00110-IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CLARKSBURG DIVISION MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION,
More informationNo IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. HO-CHUNK, INC. et al., Appellant,
USCA Case #17-5140 Document #1711535 Filed: 01/04/2018 Page 1 of 17 No. 17-5140 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit HO-CHUNK, INC. et al., Appellant, v. JEFF SESSIONS
More informationMichigan v. EPA: Money Matters When Deciding Whether to Regulate Power Plants
Volume 27 Issue 2 Article 4 8-1-2016 Michigan v. EPA: Money Matters When Deciding Whether to Regulate Power Plants Ruby Khallouf Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/elj
More informationCase 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-00295-LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., and CONSUMER
More informationCase 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-02113-JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AARP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Case No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:16-cv-00844-PJS-KMM Document 83 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA LABNET INC. D/B/A WORKLAW NETWORK, et al., v. PLAINTIFFS, UNITED STATES
More informationJ S - 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CASE NO. CV JST (FMOx) GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF.
Case :-cv-00-jls-fmo Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF vs. Plaintiffs, THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL
More informationCase: , 04/30/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-70162, 04/30/2018, ID: 10854860, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 (1 of 10) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 30 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationCase 1:08-cv VM Document 16 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:08-cv-07770-VM Document 16 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEIMEI LI, ) DUO CEN, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action No: 09-3776 v. ) ) DANIEL M.
More informationCase 3:17-cv EMC Document 46 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 22
Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of MICHAEL CONNETT, ESQ., CA Bar No. 00 CHRIS NIDEL, ESQ., D.C. Bar No. 0 (to be admitted pro hac vice FOOD & WATER WATCH Franklin St., Suite 0 Oakland, California
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-16621 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD GOLDEN GATE, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION
Islam v. Department of Homeland Security et al Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 MOHAMMAD SHER ISLAM, v. Plaintiff, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN
More informationConservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, katelyn.hepburn@umontana.edu
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-739 In the Supreme Court of the United States SCENIC AMERICA, INC., PETITIONER v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: January 11, 2019 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
More informationCase 1:18-cv DLF Document 12 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cv-00253-DLF Document 12 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE NAVAJO NATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00253-DLF )
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1054 In the Supreme Court of the United States CURTIS SCOTT, PETITIONER v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationCase 5:14-cv JPB Document Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 10711
Case 5:14-cv-00039-JPB Document 265-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 10711 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationNos (L), IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Case 17-2780, Document 115, 12/01/2017, 2185246, Page1 of 23 Nos. 17-2780 (L), 17-2806 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Petitioners,
More informationCase 1:10-cv EGS Document 6 Filed 12/13/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-02007-EGS Document 6 Filed 12/13/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, and PROJECT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Case: 11-1016 Document: 1292714 Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; METROPCS 700 MHZ, LLC; METROPCS AWS,
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-0-PJH Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C - PJH 0 v. ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
More informationRECENT CASES. (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7661a 7661f). 1 See Eric Biber, Two Sides of the Same Coin: Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Action
982 RECENT CASES FEDERAL STATUTES CLEAN AIR ACT D.C. CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT EPA CANNOT PREVENT STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES FROM SUPPLEMENTING INADEQUATE EMISSIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN THE ABSENCE OF
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO
USCA Case #17-1092 Document #1671332 Filed: 04/17/2017 Page 1 of 7 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More information15-20-CV FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff-Appellant
15-20-CV To Be Argued By: ROBERT D. SNOOK Assistant Attorney General IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROBERT KLEE, in his Official
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1495 In the Supreme Court of the United States ALVARO ADAME, v. Petitioner, LORETTA E. LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationPaper 24 Tel: Entered: October 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 24 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: October 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC. Petitioner v. EVERYMD.COM LLC Patent
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SARAH BENNETT, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent, and DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Intervenor. 2010-3084 Petition for review
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 16-9649 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationNo IN THE. CYAN, INC., et al., Petitioners, BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, et al., Respondents.
No. 15-1439 IN THE CYAN, INC., et al., v. Petitioners, BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of the State of California,
More informationAGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office)
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/19/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-00769, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code: 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF
More informationCOALITION FOR CLEAN AIR; SIERRA CLUB, INC., v. E.P.A.
1 COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR; SIERRA CLUB, INC., v. E.P.A. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 971 F.2d 219 July 1, 1992 PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the
More informationUSCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #11-1265 Document #1328728 Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS, et al., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) No. 11-1265
More informationCase 5:16-cv LHK Document 79 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 13
Case :-cv-0-lhk Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION OCEANA, INC., Plaintiff, v. WILBUR ROSS, et al., Defendants. Case No. -CV-0-LHK
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1600448 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, 2016 No. 15-1363 (Consolidated with Nos. 15-1364, 15-1365, 15-1366, 15-1367, 15-1368, 15-1370, 15-1371,
More informationCase 3:13-cv RCJ-VPC Document 38 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-00-rcj-vpc Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 0 FERRING B.V., vs. Plaintiff, ACTAVIS, INC. et al., Defendants. :-cv-00-rcj-wgc ORDER This patent infringement
More informationBEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C.
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. ) ) In the matter of: ) ) Deseret Power Electric Cooperative (Bonanza) ) PSD Appeal No. 07-03 ) PSD
More informationCase 3:10-cv BR Document 123 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 2969
Case 3:10-cv-00750-BR Document 123 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 2969 STUART F. DELERY Assistant Attorney General DIANE KELLEHER Assistant Branch Director AMY POWELL amy.powell@usdoj.gov LILY FAREL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc JODIE NEVILS, APPELLANT, vs. No. SC93134 GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC., and ACS RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENTS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY Honorable
More informationCase 2:17-cv MJP Document 238 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-0-mjp Document Filed 0/0/ Page of The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE RYAN KARNOSKI, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1075 Document #1612391 Filed: 05/10/2016 Page 1 of 7 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued February 10, 2016 Decided May 10, 2016 No. 15-1075 ELECTRONIC
More information[Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT )] Case Name:
[Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT-2018-0001)] Case Name: ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD v. JOSEPH MATAL, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL
More informationPETITIONERS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER
Appeal: 17-1926 Doc: 40 Filed: 10/06/2017 Pg: 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ALLIANCE OF NURSES FOR HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS; CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH; NATURAL RESOURCES
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 545 U. S. (2005) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 03 1234 MID-CON FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT
More informationA Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Arbitral Forum: The Latest On The Use of Class Action Waivers In Arbitration Agreements In the United States
A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Arbitral Forum: The Latest On The Use of Class Action Waivers In Arbitration Agreements In the United States by Ed Lenci, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP What is an arbitral
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 13-271 In the Supreme Court of the United States IN RE WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION ONEOK, INC., ET AL., v. LEARJET INC., ET AL., Petitioners, Respondents. On Petition
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-72816, 12/27/2017, ID: 10704135, DktEntry: 29, Page 1 of 30 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE A COMMUNITY VOICE; CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS;
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit K-CON, INC., Appellant v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, Appellee 2017-2254 Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Nos. 60686, 60687,
More informationThe New York State Attorney General is barred from enforcing state STATES LACK ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY OVER NATIONAL BANKS
STATES LACK ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY OVER NATIONAL BANKS THOMAS J. HALL In this article, the author analyzes a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejecting
More informationPatentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change Law360,
More information741 F.3d 1228 (2014) No United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. January 17, 2014.
Page 1 of 7 741 F.3d 1228 (2014) Raquel Pascoal WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants-Appellees.
More informationThe majority and the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) have. altered a federal statute by deleting three words ( to the Commission ) from the
Case 14-4626, Document 140, 09/10/2015, 1594805, Page1 of 13 DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The majority and the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) have altered a federal statute by
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 11-3514 Norman Rille, United States of America, ex rel.; Neal Roberts, United States of America, ex rel., lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees,
More informationSuccessfully Attacking Agency Regulations Thomas H. Dupree Jr. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Successfully Attacking Agency Regulations Thomas H. Dupree Jr. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP SUMMARY: Challenging agency regulations in court can often prove an uphill battle. Federal courts will often review
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #17-1038 Document #1666639 Filed: 03/17/2017 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) CONSUMERS FOR AUTO RELIABILITY
More informationNo In The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit
Case: 12-60031 Document: 00511879055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2012 No. 12-60031 In The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit D.R. HORTON, INC., Petitioner and Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-3983 Melikian Enterprises, LLLP, Creditor lllllllllllllllllllllappellant v. Steven D. McCormick; Karen A. McCormick, Debtors lllllllllllllllllllllappellees
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HTC CORPORATION, et al., HTC CORPORATION, et al., KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., V. PLAINTIFF, KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., SAN JOSE DIVISION
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-301 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL CLARKE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
More informationU.S. Law and the Stockholm POPs Convention: Analysis of Treaty-Implementing Provisions in Pending Legislation
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW U.S. Law and the Stockholm POPs Convention: Analysis of Treaty-Implementing Provisions in Pending Legislation Daryl Ditz, Baskut Tuncak and Glenn Wiser June 24,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Case :-cv-0-bhs Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 0 FRANK S LANDING INDIAN COMMUNITY, v. Plaintiff, NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION, et
More informationCase 2:17-cv WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-04540-WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in
More informationCase 18-25, Document 22, 02/05/2018, , Page1 of 26
Case 18-25, Document 22, 02/05/2018, 2229658, Page1 of 26 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-80213, 11/09/2017, ID: 10649704, DktEntry: 6-2, Page 1 of 15 Appeal No. 17 80213 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARLON H. CRYER, individually and on behalf of a class of
More informationCase 2:11-cv SLB Document 96 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-02746-SLB Document 96 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 8 FILED 2011 Sep-30 PM 03:17 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
Nos. 06-340, 06-549 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, et al., Petitioners, v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al., Respondents. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE BARNES & NOBLE, INC., Petitioner. Miscellaneous Docket No. 162 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1044 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROBERT DONNELL DONALDSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-60698 Document: 00514652277 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant Appellee, United States
More information